The Court of Appeal has refused Barry Kirwan more time to appeal three High Court orders in a bank’s claim for more than €430,000 over loan facilities.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2016, Ms Justice Irvine dismissed Kirwan’s application for an extension of time. The orders concerned substituted service of a summary summons, a decision that service was good and sufficient, and the treatment of Kirwan’s conditional appearance as unconditional.
Danske Bank A/S issued the summary summons on 15 November 2013. The judgment says the bank maintained that it served the proceedings on Kirwan on 7 July 2014. Kirwan disputed receiving the documents the bank said it had posted and said a friend gave him a printout of the relevant documents. He said that prompted him to enter a conditional appearance to challenge the substituted-service order.
The first order, made by Mr Justice Peart on 23 June 2014, permitted substituted service at Glenville Road, Wexford. Kirwan argued that the bank knew he had been living at Evergreen Cottage, Newcastle, Crossabeg, and had misrepresented his circumstances. He also challenged the supporting affidavit on procedural grounds. Justice Irvine said the loan documents and correspondence supported the bank’s belief that Glenville Road was his address, and found no bona fide ground of appeal in the arguments identified. She also concluded that the affidavit objections did not establish a viable challenge.
A second order, made by Mr Justice Cross on 2 March 2015, refused Kirwan’s application to set aside the substituted-service order and deemed service good and sufficient. Justice Irvine said Kirwan had not explained why he failed to appeal within the relevant time after being advised on 23 March that an appeal was the proper procedure. She also found no bona fide appeal ground for the service decision.
The third order, made on 23 March 2015, treated Kirwan’s conditional appearance as unconditional. The judgment states that he had not shown a timely intention to appeal or explained the delay, and had advanced no arguable ground against that order. The court noted that the application concerned the route by which the bank sought to prove its claim; Kirwan retained the rights available to a defendant in the substantive proceedings.
The court dismissed the application to extend time. It did not decide the underlying loan claim.